maniclucky @ maniclucky @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

341

Joined

2 yr. ago

They shouldn't be plotted that way technically. The big 5 are independent traits so they should essentially be sliders, not linked like that.

That said, it's way easier to see the points when you do that. Easy to miss when colors swap, for example, without the lines when you've been looking at this stuff for a few hours.

To pile on: They don't filter anything, or search anything. They are clever parrots made up of huge streaks of linear algebra. It has no understanding of anything nor interest in doing more than generating sentences that look right given a prompt. Even saying that it has 'no understanding' or 'interest' is giving it too much credit, implying intelligence or decision making capability. It's just ridiculously vast math.

Upvote for use of real interrobang alone.

Mormonism is like acid-trip-based fanfiction for displaced Europeans to feel included in shit that may or may not have happened in the middle east.

Been a minute since I read these. It's so telling that the actual crimes start at 6, and move to thought crimes at 9. The rest is god fluffing itself.

Wait. Is scientology related to the abrahamic religions?

I was thinking frame them in a really bad frame that falls on its face all the time. If you have older students, just loudly state how much you would dislike it if the commandments were stolen or otherwise defaced and let nature do its work.

But I like yours.

Sociopathy, lack of long term planning skills, drugs (metaphorical and physical). Some combination of those I suspect.

I've no significant opinion of India beyond anti-Modi, and that's a product of John Oliver. Most of my engineering team are Indian and some I like, some I tolerate. And a fear of Indian traffic by reputation alone.

But you could swap "American" with "Indian" in that first paragraph, change nothing else, and it be largely (if not entirely) accurate.

Fair enough. A lesson in "not every bad take is Russian".

Shocking. What's the over/under on that person being a Russian troll?

When I was doing my 2 second google search, I spotted the whitehouse.gov link (and it's what reminded me about Ketanji Brown Jackson), but figured the person I was responding to would mark that as biased.

You haven't actually commented on anything recent, just vague references to his non-presidency years (people are allowed to change). Nor have you shown that any of the listed presidents were more progressive. Your argument is "nuh uh". You claim he failed. How? You didn't even take the low hanging fruit of "Isreal" or "continued border bullshit".

Here, I'll start: nominated the first black woman to the supreme court. More low hanging fruit, but you've set the bar rather low. He's been doing quite a lot for the LGBT community, which is a pretty big reversal from his past.

See. Two sentences, one source, and now there's substance. Now. Refute me.

My grandmother was the county coroner for a while. She was a pharmacist professionally. In those places, it's more "give it a quick kick and say they're dead" (she never did that) more than anything else. She only declared death, not attribute cause to my knowledge.

The other part of it is that, for whatever reason, in my county the only higher arresting authority than the sheriff was the coroner. It was her job to serve him with papers when he was being sued and, not that it ever came up, arrest him when it needed done.

Weird system.

What, my ~7 paragraphs isn't simple? /s

You're correct. I think I was chafing at the systems in question predisposing friendliness to mean modes that I personally am unskilled at or uncomfortable with despite my value.

My problem with your example is that the loner didn't have comparable value. If it was supporting other things, then it failed. If it was doing something non obvious, it shouldn't be compared to the support. It feels fallacious, though I can't name one specifically.

System sight is itself an issue. Many companies evaluate an employee solely on some performance metric, typically tied to money. Because it's easy (and lazy).

I've had several positions where my task was to keep things running. I added no value, I prevented loss. And those positions get screwed because they're very difficult to quantify worth and very hard to see (and if it doesn't create money, they don't care). You only notice them when something goes wrong. Such an employee may keep everything running all year and get a "meets expectations" because there's an upper limit on how much contribution the system sees, and the system doesn't want to put in the effort to see better. I may have had to climb over an air handler to get to a transducer to calibrate, but that's not sexy and even if I report such effort, it's what I'm supposed to do (even if I wasn't, weekend nights are weird).

No one is going to write down "keep machine running 80% of the time" because people unassociated with the task will insist that 100% is the expectation, despite that being unreasonable.

A system built of people is not a black box. We can see them and evaluate them based on the task they're supposed to do, but the evaluators don't want to put in the effort to do their tasks in a way that means more work for them.

There's a comment to be made also about scope creep for a position so that a company doesn't have to hire marketing and engineering if they can get the engineers to do it. Despite them being suboptimal for the task. Something something down with unrestrained capitalism.

Ok. I've lost the plot at this point and made my point. Have a good one.

That's a pretty contrived setup. If the two top components are not factored into the performance of the whole and they are both defined by their ability to improve other components, then the one doing it's own thing is not, in fact, a top performer. It's task is to support others and it fails to do so.

And what if the loner's task is foundational? It doesn't have much direct output, but if he's gone and everything else goes to shit? Those ones are very hard to measure. I know, that's been my job for a good portion of my career. And things like that are common. Expecting a given performer, say an engineer, to also be good at public speaking has always struck me as impractical.

Ooooh, big stretch.

I'm aware.

How is the dichotomy true? It's predicated on "all men are monsters" and that's patently false, thus the arguments proceeding it are false.

I acknowledged an additional outcome (more like two outcomes, one cascading from the other): "some men are monsters and I am not one of them". With no further statement. Should you wish to brand me as a monster, the onus is on you to prove it.

Use your words. How is it false. I think some stuff got lost in the formatting.